Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
the impact. but i'm wondering, two of the candidates will be coming out after this big debate here in washington. does that give an advantage or a disadvantage or is it unclear based on the outcome? >> well, it's unclear based on the outcome certainly. the congresswoman and the congressman have both been very strong in their opposition. >> no compromise. right? >> that will appeal to many people in the base of the party. and i think what you've heard from some of the other candidates is somewhat more equivocal position. though john huntsman this week came out strongly for the boehner plan and said it was the only plan going and that the republicans and everybody ought to get behind it. congresswoman bachmann in particular, i think, has staked out that kind of tea party position. and she'll probably benefit from that. i think the other candidates are trying to get a piece of that, but try to go more broadly. >> i think bachmann and to a certain extent paul also risk some pleasure of backlash, or could in their don't raise the ceiling at all and their positions, playing down is a pot
the state of pennsylvania has come in and said defaulting on the debt is not that big a deal. it can be, quote in his words, easily managed. does the senator from arizona agree with that thinking? mr. mccain: as the senator may know, i came to the floor a couple of days ago and made that comment, and the senator from illinois and i are in agreement, point number one. you can prioritize -- i think the senator and every economist i know literally would agree. you can prioritize for awhile where you want what remaining money is left. but the message you send to the world, not just our markets but to the world, that the united states of america is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation. we are in agreement, number one. mr. durbin: amen. mr. mccain: number two is that to insist, to insist that any agreement is based on the passage through the united states senate of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states, as i said before, is not fair to the american people because, because the terrible obstructionists on this
on the foundation of businesses, big and small, providing the goods and services that the market demands. restamericans livelihood's on businesses providing jobs which are currently in short supply. the unemployment rate is hovering around 9%. poverty has increased 14% -- to 14% of americans now living in poverty, and many who are unemployed have been searching for work for more than a year. these americans need a job and the certainty that comes with going to work every day. in this environment, the business community has an opportunity and an obligation to help get americans back to work. businesses need to step up to the plate by preserving good- paying jobs and creating new ones, which means not just waiting for demand to fully recover, giving americans a chance, including the long-term unemployed. we want to make sure our tax code supports efforts to create jobs. our ultimate goal is not simply economic growth for the sake of a or profitability for business owners alone, but job creation cannot occur without this growth. we know the american businesses face obstacles in achieving gr
and overseas will be paid because if they are not, there would be a big crisis. there alsoeen suggestions by some that social security recipients should be paid. there been suggesons by others that the members of the active military should be paid. has anyone said that veterans should be paid no matter what? not necessarily. should schoolteachers, should local school boards receive money, highways, should welfare recipients? it is uncertain who would not get money if the government no longer had sufficient money to borrow. these are the kinds of questions that have been thought about but it really little public discussion because as the treasury department does not want to alarm the public that this might happen. host: earlier we talked about republicans on the fence. this is from the "wall street journal." the listed also democrats on the fence. they listed these. guest: there are differences among republicans and also among some democrats. having said that, there was one kevote in the house yesterday and in the senate. on each of those two votes, the democrats voted unanimously. we have
citizens while it gives big tax breaks for oil? is it level so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs overseas? is it on the level for us to make children -- young people and their families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks to the high end? is it on the level to bring a boehner bill to the floor that makes all those cuts, undermines social security, eliminates medicare and it doesn't charge one red cent to people who have benefited so much from the greatness of our country? is it our best? is it our best to drag this out for all this time to keep in sess spence as to whether we would -- suspense as to whether we would honor our constitutional responsibility to pay our debts? the constitution says the national debt has to be recognized. it has to be recognized. and recognize we did. president after president, 3 times in -- 32 times in recent memory, including when president bush was president, at that time, even though many of us did not agree with the war in iraq, did not agree the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tunes
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5